Quantifying the Effects of Earthworms on Soil Aggregation and Porosity

Martin J. ShipitaloNorth Appalachian Experimental Watershed, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Coshocton, Ohio

Renee-Claire Le BayonDepartment of Plant Ecology, Neuchâtel University, Neuchâtel, Switzerland

CONTENTS

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................183Ecological Classification of Earthworms ......................................................................................184Aggregation ....................................................................................................................................184

Ingestion Rates and Properties of Casts.................................................................................184Remolding of Soil Aggregates by Earthworms .....................................................................185Measurement of the Stabilization of Aggregates in Casts.....................................................186Stabilization of Aggregates in Casts: Physical, Chemical, and Biological Processes ...............................................................................................................186Role of Organic Matter...........................................................................................................187Surface Casting, Soil Erosion, and Nutrient Transport .........................................................188

Porosity and Infiltration .................................................................................................................190Characterization of Burrow Morphology ...............................................................................190Effects of Earthworm Burrows on Infiltration .......................................................................190Effects of Earthworm Burrows on Water Quality..................................................................193

Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................194References ......................................................................................................................................194

INTRODUCTION

The potential for earthworms to improve soil aggregation and porosity and the subsequent effectsof these changes in soil structure on plant growth and soil hydrology were perhaps first recognizedby Gilbert White in 1777 when he wrote “worms seem to be great promoters of vegetation, whichwould proceed but lamely without them; by boring, perforating, and loosening the soil, andrendering it pervious to rains and the fibres of plants; by drawing straws and stalks of leaves andtwigs into it; and, most of all, by throwing up such infinite numbers of lumps of earth called worm-casts, which, being their excrement, is a fine manure for grain and grass” (White 1789). Prior tothese observations, earthworms were often regarded as pests by farmers and as detrimental to cropgrowth.

Published in Earthworm Ecology 10, 183-200, 2004which should be used for any reference to this work

1

One hundred years later, the first scientific observations on the effects of earthworms on soilstructure were conducted by Darwin (1881) and centered mostly on how earthworms contribute tothe geologic evolution of soils and landscapes. Like White, he recognized that earthworms promotethe growth of vegetation by creating an intimate mixture of organic and mineral matter that aidsin water retention and nutrient release and provides a medium suitable for root proliferation. Healso recognized that deep-burrowing earthworms affect water movement in the soil and “materiallyaid in its drainage.” Darwin also postulated that earthworm activity can have negative aspects bycontributing to “denudation” (soil erosion) by both wind and water. This was based on observationsthat casting activity by earthworms can result in the deposition of weakly aggregated material atthe soil surface that can flow or be washed or blown downslope.

In the ensuing years since these pioneering naturalists published their findings, a number ofscientific studies have confirmed their observations, and there now is detailed data on the effectsof earthworms on soil aggregation and soil porosity. We are also beginning to understand thechemical and physical processes by which earthworms affect soil structure and the consequencesof their activity, both positive and negative, and the interrelationships between soil managementand earthworm activity.

ECOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATION OF EARTHWORMS

Earthworms affect soil physical properties when they ingest and excrete soil to construct burrowsand as part of their feeding activities. Because different earthworm species have different ecologicalstrategies, their effects on soil aggregation and porosity can vary considerably. Most earthwormsare placed in one of three ecological groups: epigeic, anecic, or endogeic (Bouché 1977).

Epigeic species of earthworms generally forage within accumulations of organic matter andrarely burrow into or ingest much soil. Typical habitats include forest litter or manure piles; thus,they have little direct effect on the structure of mineral soils. For example, Hamilton and Dindal(1989) noted that the epigeic earthworm Eisenia fetida had no effect on aggregation in a sludge-amended soil.

In the same study, however, the anecic earthworm Lumbricus terrestris improved aggregation.Anecic earthworm species normally live in permanent or semipermanent burrows that can extenddeep into the soil. They feed primarily on decaying surface organic residues, which they frequentlypull into their burrows or mix with excrement to form a midden. The midden promotes furtherdecay of the incorporated organic residues and covers the burrow entrance.

Endogeic earthworm species burrow extensively belowground and obtain their nutrition byingesting a mixture of soil and organic matter. They form extensively branched, subhorizontalnetworks of burrows in search of food, but most of their activity is in the upper 10 to 15 cm, whereorganic matter levels are generally highest. Portions of their burrows are often occluded with theircasts, and they occasionally cast on the soil surface. These classifications are not absolute becausethe behavior of many species is intermediate to these groupings and can vary with environmentalconditions (C.A. Edwards and Bohlen 1996).

AGGREGATION

INGESTION RATES AND PROPERTIES OF CASTS

Although earthworms feed on decaying organic matter and the microorganisms that colonize it,the material ingested by endogeic and anecic species during feeding and burrowing is predominantlymineral matter. This mineral and organic material is mixed thoroughly in their digestive tracts andexcreted as casts on the soil surface or belowground, depending on the species of earthworm,location of the food source, and soil bulk density (Binet and Le Bayon 1999). The amount of soilingested is highly dependent on the size, composition, and activity of the earthworm population

2

and is hard to measure accurately because subsurface activity is difficult to monitor. Nevertheless,estimated soil ingestion rates for earthworms in temperate regions are usually less than 100 Mgha-1 year-1 (Tomlin et al. 1995). In tropical areas, such as the Ivory Coast, where climatic conditionsare less likely to seasonally inhibit activity, Lavelle et al. (1989) reported a cast production rate of1200 Mg ha-1 year-1. High cast production rates such as this are attributable to the fact thatgeophageous, endogeic earthworms can ingest 5 to 30 times their body weight per day (Lavelle1988). According to Lee (1985), earthworms can process up to 25% of the Ah horizon in 1 yearand thus can be important aggregate-forming agents through the production of casts in the soil andon the surface. In a laboratory study, Ziegler and Zech (1992) showed that E. fetida could bind upto two thirds of the beech litter and unstructured artificial soil into 200 to 2000 mm diameteraggregates in 446 days.

Earthworm casts, deposited on the burrow walls, within the burrow, or on the soil surface(Brown et al. 2000), usually contain more clay and less sand than the surrounding soil because ofselective ingestion, with this effect more prominent with endogeic species, which tend to be smallerthan anecic species of earthworms. This concentration of fine particles in earthworm casts mayneed to be taken into account when using methods such as dispersible clay or turbidity to comparethe stability of casts to uningested soil. Moreover, the relative differences in texture between castsand uningested soil are probably dependent on the coarseness of the parent soil. For example,Shipitalo and Protz (1988) noted that casts of Lumbricus rubellus, an epigeic/endogeic species,contained less sand than those of L. terrestris (anecic species), and both had less sand than theuningested soil (18% sand). Whereas Schrader and Zhang (1997) reported small differences in thetexture between the casts of L. terrestris and Aporrectodea caliginosa (endogeic) and parent soilswith initial sand contents less than 4%.

Likewise, the amount of organic matter incorporated into casts is dependent on whether theearthworms are actively burrowing or feeding and the food source. Shipitalo et al. (1988) reportedthat food ingestion rates and organic carbon contents of casts were higher for more palatable foodsources, as reflected in earthworm weight gains, and that casts of L. rubellus were generally higherin organic carbon than those of L. terrestris. In a study by Schrader and Zhang (1997), however, L.terrestris casts were enriched in organic carbon to a greater extent than A. caliginosa casts. Specificorganic compounds such as reducing sugars, amino sugars, phenolic materials (Mora et al. 2003),and carbohydrates (Scullion and Malik 2000) can also be concentrated by earthworms in their casts.Earthworm casts also usually have higher bulk density than the uningested soil (C.A. Edwards andBohlen 1996; Görres et al. 2001), unless the soil is already compacted (Joschko et al. 1989), and arehigher in pH, contain more available nutrients, and have higher levels of microbial activity.

REMOLDING OF SOIL AGGREGATES BY EARTHWORMS

The muscular contractions of the earthworm crop and gizzard, the peristalsis of the gut wall, andcontractions of the body wall create a great range of pressures that mechanically disrupt soil microag-gregates during passage through the digestive tract. The mean pressure applied to soil by Aporrectodearosea was estimated as 259 Pa (McKenzie and Dexter 1987). For L. terrestris, Newell (1950) reportedthat the average coelom pressure was 1.6 kPa in segment 28 and 0.8 kPa near the tail region. Suchpressures, concomitant to the addition of large amounts of watery mucus (Barois et al. 1993), can leadto the mobilization of clay (Marinissen et al. 1996) and the disruption of existing interparticle waterand cation bridges in the aggregates (Shipitalo and Protz 1988, 1989). Conversely, soil remolding alsobrings clay minerals into close association with newly formed or released bonding agents originatingfrom the ingested organic matter (Shipitalo and Protz 1989). Consequently, the soil fabric is reorganizedin the posterior intestine of earthworms (Barois et al. 1993), with resistant organic fragments becomingthe foci for new microaggregates (Shipitalo and Protz 1989). Earthworm gut transit time probably alsoaffects the degree of microaggregate disruption. It reportedly takes 2 to 24 hours for soil to pass throughthe digestive tract of lumbricid earthworms (Barley 1959; Piearce 1972; Bolton and Phillipson 1976).

3

To gain further insights into the physical processes occurring in the earthworm gut, a numberof researchers have compared the stability of artificial casts to those made by earthworms. In somecases, the artificial casts were less stable than natural casts, which may be related to applying forcesto the soil greater than those normally encountered within the earthworm gut (Zhang and Schrader1993; Hindell et al. 1994, 1997a; Schrader and Zhang 1997). This may be a particular concernwhen artificial casts are made by forcing soil material through a syringe (Hindell et al. 1997a).Zhang and Schrader (1993) also suggested that earthworm casts were more readily stabilized thanartificial casts because the organic and mineral fractions were mixed more intimately within theearthworms than when the soil was artificially remolded. On the other hand, Marinissen and Dexter(1990) reported that fresh casts produced by A. caliginosa were up to two times more dispersiblethan artificial casts made by extruding the same soil through a syringe. In this instance, theysuggested that the results were probably attributable to less intensive remolding in the artificialcasts than in the earthworm casts. Despite the difficulties in replicating the physical forces encoun-tered by soil material during passage through earthworms, Hindell et al. (1997a) pointed out thatartificial casts can be a useful model against which changes in soil structure that result fromearthworm activity can be tested.

MEASUREMENT OF THE STABILIZATION OF AGGREGATES IN CASTS

Prior to the mid-1980s, most studies suggested that freshly excreted earthworm casts were imme-diately more stable than uningested soil (Hopp and Hopkins 1946; Dutt 1948; Swaby 1950; Teotiaet al. 1950; Parle 1963; Lal and DeVleeschauwer 1982; Lal and Akinremi 1983). These results,however, were mainly attributable to the fact that the samples were dried before analysis. Mostrecent studies indicated that fresh, moist casts are less water stable than uningested soil becauseof the intense remolding that occurs during passage through earthworms (Shipitalo and Protz 1988;Marinissen and Dexter 1990; Barois et al. 1993; Schrader and Zhang 1997; Decaëns et al. 2001).

As casts age, they are stabilized by a combination of physical, chemical, and biologicalprocesses, which explains why some casts can persist at the soil surface for more than a year whenprotected from raindrop impact and trampling by animals (Decaëns 2000). Although several studieshave shown that aging or drying fresh casts reduced their dispersibility (Shipitalo and Protz 1988;Marinissen and Dexter 1990), this conclusion has not been universal (Haynes and Fraser 1998).To understand these seemingly contradictory findings, the methodology used to measure the stabilityof earthworm casts (e.g., wet or dry sieving, clay dispersion, turbidimetric analysis), as well as theeffects of other treatments to which the casts have been subjected (wetting and drying cycles,simulated rainfalls, sterilization and chemical treatments), must be taken into account.

Water-stable aggregation is an index for aggregate stability under wet conditions, whereas tensilestrength (determined by a crush test) is an index for aggregate stability under dry conditions. The tensilestrength of aggregates is influenced by their water and clay contents (Gill 1959) and decreases withincreased porosity (Dexter et al. 1984). In studies in which tensile strength was measured (Schraderand Zhang 1997; Garvin et al. 2001), earthworm casts were significantly stronger than natural aggre-gates. The tensile strength of casts, however, appears to be species dependent because Flegel et al.(1998) observed a lower tensile strength for the casts of Dendrobaena octaedra compared to those ofL. terrestris. Similarly, Schrader and Zhang (1997) noted that water-stable aggregation was significantlyhigher in casts of L. terrestris than in casts of A. caliginosa.

STABILIZATION OF AGGREGATES IN CASTS: PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL, AND BIOLOGICAL PROCESSES

One of the physical processes thought to contribute to the stabilization of casts with age isthixotropic hardening (Shipitalo and Protz 1989). Thixotropic or age hardening is described byUtomo and Dexter (1981) as a rearrangement of particles and water films and a restoration of

4

edge-to-edge contacts between clay domains with time, but without water loss. These processesare reversible, and organic matter reportedly slows or has no effect on thixotropic hardening (Blakeand Gilman 1970; Molope et al. 1985). As Marinissen et al. (1996) pointed out, however, thixotropicprocess normally occur within hours, so cannot be solely responsible for the stabilization that occursin casts over much longer time frames.

In addition to the physical processes, chemical processes can contribute to stabilization ofearthworm casts. Earthworms are known to secrete amorphous calcium carbonate (C.A. Edwardsand Bohlen 1996), a possible binding agent (Tisdall and Oades, 1982). In addition, by using selectivechemical pretreatments, Shipitalo and Protz (1989) gathered indirect evidence that calcium, and toa lesser extent magnesium, are involved in the clay-polyvalent cation-organic matter linkages thatstabilize soil microaggregates within casts. In fact, the change in CaCO3 content in casts comparedto uningested soil (Zhang and Schrader 1993) might be useful as an index of the capacity of variousearthworm species to bond soil particles and reform new stable aggregates. When they comparedcasts from various soils, Schrader and Zhang (1997) found positive correlations between tensilestrength and the clay and CaCO3 contents of the soil. These parameters, however, correlatednegatively to water-stable aggregation. Hindell et al. (1997a) hypothesized that the greater dispers-ibility of artificial casts compared to natural casts was because of a greater loss of calcium ionsfrom the artificial casts, which reduced coagulation of clay particles.

The production of microbial polysaccharides in casts (Chapman and Lynch 1985; Emerson etal. 1986; Robertson et al. 1991) and polysaccharides that are added to casts in the mucus secretedby earthworms and by mucilages produced by microorganisms living in their digestive tract (Baroisand Lavelle 1986; Kristufek et al. 1992) may also affect aggregate stability. The role these polysac-charides play in cast aggregation, however, is still uncertain.

Hindell et al. (1997a) suggested that the secretion of soluble carbohydrates in the earthwormgut initially facilitates the dispersion of clay. On the other hand, Swaby (1950) showed that, aspopulations of intestinal bacteria increased, the production of gums and glues increased, and caststability increased. Altemüller and Joschko (1992) also showed that carbohydrates produced bybacteria can serve as cementing agents, and Flegel et al. (1998) report a significant correlationbetween phosphomonoesterase activity and the water-stable aggregation of earthworm casts.

Other research, however, has demonstrated that microbial activity is not necessary for casts tostabilize (Marinissen and Dexter 1990; Marinissen et al. 1996; Haynes and Fraser 1998). In fact,microbial activity may be reduced in some casts because of limited gaseous exchange caused bytheir high bulk density (Blanchart et al. 1993). In some instances, poor correlations of aggregatestability in casts with the size of the microbial populations and polysaccharide content are probablybecause the arrangement and location of these constituents within casts is more important than theabsolute quantities (Shipitalo and Protz 1989; Haynes and Fraser 1998).

Microbial activity can also physically stabilize earthworm casts. Fungal hyphae have beenreported to stabilize soil aggregates and casts (Tisdall and Oades 1982; Molope et al. 1987;Marinissen and Dexter 1990; Lee and Foster 1991; Tisdall 1991; Tisdall et al. 1997; Kabir andKoide 2002). Using scanning electron microscopy, Haynes and Fraser (1998) observed that fungalhyphae emanating from within casts enmeshed aggregates. Tiunov and Scheu (2000) found thatmost fungi can survive passage through L. terrestris, but the dominance structure of the fungalcommunity changes with time and remains cast specific for up to 100 days.

ROLE OF ORGANIC MATTER

In most studies, the amounts and source of organic matter incorporated into the soil by earthwormshas been shown to have a significant affect on aggregate stability within casts; thus, a positivecorrelation between cast organic carbon content and cast stability is frequently noted (Shipitaloand Protz 1988; Zhang and Schrader 1993; Schrader and Zhang 1997; Flegel et al. 1998). Earth-worms play a large role in litter comminution and its repartitioning into the smaller aggregate size

5

fractions. For example, the organic matter in the fraction larger than 2000 mm decreased from 97to 27% in the presence of the E. fetida, leading to a predominant 630- to 2000-mm fraction after446 days of incubation (Ziegler and Zech 1992). This litter-derived organic matter can serve as abonding agent or promote microbial activity that leads to the production of bonding agents (Guggen-berger et al. 1996).

Beare et al. (1994) suggested that the incorporation of organic matter promotes the formationof stable microaggregates within macroaggregates. Kladivko et al. (1986) found that, after drying,aggregate stability was mainly determined by the type of plant remains, although the effect ofearthworms was still significant. Once incorporated into casts and if not subject to further distur-bances, the organic matter can persist for many years (McInerney et al. 2001), with organic carbonpersistence and dynamics in earthworm casts dependent on complex interactions among soil texture,temperature, and wetting cycles (McInerney and Bolger 2000). In some instances, however, caststabilization has been observed in the absence of a source of organic residue (Marinissen and Dexter1990; Marinissen et al. 1996). Similarly, although Haynes and Fraser (1998) observed fragmentsof decomposing organic material adhering to aggregate surfaces, they noted stabilization in theabsence of a source of organic residue. It is likely that the type and extent of bonding will dependon properties of the soil materials and on the quality and the quantity of the ingested organic debris.

Thus, several physical, chemical, and biological mechanisms probably contribute to the stabi-lization of aggregates within casts, and their relative importance can vary under different conditionsand with different earthworm species. The continued stability of these aggregates can be influencedby wetting and drying cycles and whether other soil organisms disrupt them. Successive wettingand drying cycles contribute to the stability of natural aggregates by creating bonds of differentnature between the contact points of soil particles over time (Dexter et al. 1988).

In casts, Marinissen and Dexter (1990) assumed that the effects of drying-rewetting would bemore persistent with time than the effects of fungal hyphae. In newly remolded aggregates, Utomoand Dexter (1982) showed that wetting and drying increased the percentage of water-stable aggre-gates two- to fourfold. Nevertheless, Hindell et al. (1997b) reported opposite results for initiallyair-dried casts and uningested soil. Air-dried samples slaked severely when immersed in water, andthey speculated that surface casts are the most subject to slaking following sudden rain or irrigation.

In a laboratory microcosm study, Shaw and Pawluk (1986) noted that soil structure developmentwas maximized when anecic and endogeic earthworm species were allowed to interact. In a fieldstudy in a tropical region, however, Blanchart et al. (1997) noted that small eudrilid earthwormsaccelerated the destruction of aggregates created by larger earthworms. This prevented accumulationof large casts at the soil surface and, in some cases, led to the formation of a compact andimpermeable layer and to negative effects on plant growth (Blanchart et al. 1999; Chauvel et al.1999). In temperate region soils, Ge et al. (2001) noted that casts near the soil surface degradedrapidly unless protected by a mulch cover, and Shuster et al. (2000) noted that foraging and middenbuilding by anecic earthworm species reduced residue cover and exposed more soil and casts toraindrop impact.

SURFACE CASTING, SOIL EROSION, AND NUTRIENT TRANSPORT

Although Darwin (1881) speculated that earthworms contribute to soil erosion, it is now knownthat the net effect of their activity on soil losses depends on a number of interacting factors. Byburrowing into the soil and creating macropores, earthworms can increase infiltration rates 2- to15-fold, which should lead to a reduction in runoff (Ehlers 1975; Joschko et al. 1989; W.M. Edwardset al. 1990; Kladivko and Timmenga 1990; Bouché and Al-Addan 1997; Willoughby et al. 1997).This, in turn, should contribute to a reduction in soil loss. In addition, earthworms can increasesurface roughness by casting on the soil surface, and their burrowing activity can disrupt soil crusts,which should further increase infiltration and reduce runoff (Kladivko et al. 1986).

6

However, because freshly deposited casts are of low stability, they are subject to dispersion ifdeposited on the soil surface and not protected from raindrop impacts (Van Hoof 1983). Thisdetached material is then subject to transport, which can contribute to soil losses and the loss ofsediment-associated nitrogen (Parle 1963; Binet and Tréhen 1992; Buck et al. 1999), phosphorus(Graff 1970; Sharpley and Syers 1976; Ganeshamurthy et al. 1998), and potassium (Tiwari et al.1989; Ganeshamurthy et al. 1998). Hence, surface casts have been shown to be a source of sedimentand particulate and dissolved P in surface runoff from a permanent pasture (Sharpley and Syers1976; Sharpley et al. 1979). In temperate regions, surface-casting activity can increase sedimentlosses from fields used to grow row crops, particularly in maize fields, where compacted soils cancontribute to increased surface casting activity and increased surface runoff (Binet and Le Bayon1999; Le Bayon and Binet 1999). In a tropical forest, Nooren et al. (1995) estimated that 0.12 kgm-2 year-1 of organic suspended sediment originated from the disintegration of earthworm castsbecause of the combined effect of rain splash and surface runoff.

Field plot research conducted by Le Bayon and Binet (2001) using simulated rainfall highlightedthe complexity of the dynamic interrelationships among earthworm surface casting activity, runoff,and erosion in temperate region agroecosystems. Although these experiments confirmed some of thefindings of static measurements, such as cast water stability and tensile strength, they also indicatedthat a number of other factors must be taken into account to understand the potential contributionsof earthworm casts to soil erosion and nutrient transport. They found that recently deposited earthwormcasts were more susceptible to dispersion by raindrops and transport in surface runoff than older casts,probably because of enhanced stability with time caused by the mechanisms discussed here. Theresistance of casts to dispersion with time also appeared to be species dependent (anecic vs. endogeic).Casts were enriched in particulate phosphorus compared to uningested soil. Nevertheless, soil andparticulate phosphorus losses in runoff were less from plots with earthworm casts than from controlplots without surface casts. This was attributed to a reduction in surface runoff because of enhancedinfiltration from earthworm burrowing activity and the casts acting as a physical barrier to runoff byincreasing surface roughness, thereby ponding water and further delaying the onset of runoff (Figure10.1). By following the fate of individual earthworm casts, they also determined that cast morphology(base/height ratio), weight, bulk density, and abundance could affect cast susceptibility to dispersionand transport, factors that would not be evident based on water stability or tensile strength measure-ments. Moreover, factors external to earthworm activity, such as rainfall intensity and slope, can alsoaffect the fate of surface casts (Figure 10.1).

FIGURE 10.1 Interrelationships between earthworm surface casting activity, rainfall, surface runoff, infiltra-tion, and soil erosion. (From Le Bayon, R.C. and F. Binet, 2001, Pedobiologia, 45:430–442. )

raindropsintensity

runoff

percolation

physical brakefeedback

rainfall impactphysical processes

hypodermicinfiltration

4.5% slope

deposition/suspensionof particles

breakdowndispersion

7

POROSITY AND INFILTRATION

CHARACTERIZATION OF BURROW MORPHOLOGY

Because they burrow extensively into mineral soil, endogeic and anecic earthworms can substan-tially alter soil porosity. Estimates of the number of burrows in temperate region soils range ashigh as 100 to 800 m-2 (Lavelle 1988). Although these burrows usually account for a small fractionof the soil volume, because of their continuity, stability, and relatively large size compared to poresformed by most other mechanisms, these macropores have the potential to affect greatly themovement of air, water, and solutes. Moreover, unlike cracks, earthworm burrows tend to remainopen and continue to function as preferential flow paths under wet soil conditions (Friend and Chan1995) and are less likely to be closed by vehicle-induction compaction than other soil macropores(Alakukku et al. 2002). Quantifying burrow numbers and morphology is difficult, however, and anumber of techniques have been used to accomplish this task.

A commonly used technique is to count the number of burrows open at various depths in thesoil and measure their diameters. These counts can be performed manually or by taking photographsand using image analysis techniques (Shipitalo and Protz 1987; W.M. Edwards et al. 1988a, 1988b).If accurate information on burrow continuity is to be obtained, the observations must be made atrelatively narrowly spaced vertical intervals. This can be accomplished by serially sectioning thesoil either in situ or with impregnated soil thin sections (Ehlers 1975; Ligthart et al. 1993; McKenzieand Dexter 1993; Schrader 1993; Hirth et al. 1996; Ligthart 1997; Pitkänen and Nuutinen 1997;Sveistrup et al. 1997; Springett and Gray 1998). These techniques, however, are laborious and areoften only partially successful, particularly in the soil layers near the surface, because of loose soilaggregates and interference by plant roots (Ligthart et al. 1993). For example, McKenzie and Dexter(1993) were only successful 20% of the time when they used a grid coordinate system and manualexcavation to measure earthworm burrow geometry.

A modification of the excavation technique that reduces some of the difficulties encounteredin trying to track the continuity of individual earthworm burrows and that can result in more accuratecharacterization of their morphology is through the use of replicas of burrows made in situ (Figure10.2). These replicas can be made using materials such as molten lead (Teotia et al. 1950), plaster(Bouma et al. 1982; Wang et al. 1994), wax (Smettem 1986), or fiberglass resin (Shipitalo and Butt1999; Shipitalo and Gibbs 2000). Like excavation, this technique is not always successful becauseof an inability to fill the burrows completely with the impregnating media. Additional drawbacksare that the technique works best only on burrows of relatively large diameter (i.e., >5 mm), andremoval of the replicas is a tedious operation.

More recently, x-ray computed tomography has been used to characterize earthworm burrowmorphology (Golabi et al. 1995; Daniel et al. 1997; Perret et al. 1997; Jegou et al. 1998; Capowiezet al. 1998, Langmaack et al. 1999). A major advantage of this technique, compared to proceduresinvolving excavation, is that the soil is not disturbed during the analysis. Consequently, the dynamicsof burrow construction can be investigated. Besides the limited availability and high expense ofthis equipment, a major disadvantage is that the resolution of the current generation of equipmentis such that only the morphology of large diameter burrows can be accurately assessed. Anotherconcern is that the samples are usually obtained by incubating earthworms in columns of soil thatwill fit within the instruments rather than examining burrows formed by earthworms in the fieldunder natural conditions. As Springett and Gray (1998) noted when they manually excavatedburrows, there can be major differences between those formed in laboratory columns and thoseformed in the field because of restriction of the available space in columns.

EFFECTS OF EARTHWORM BURROWS ON INFILTRATION

A variety of field and laboratory techniques have been used to determine the effects of earthwormburrows on infiltration. These techniques include dye and tracer studies, studies in which movement

8

of water coming from individual earthworm burrows is monitored, and studies in which the overalleffect of earthworm presence on infiltration rate of the bulk soil is investigated. These studies haveshown that burrows made by anecic and endogeic species of earthworms can effectively conductwater (Zachmann et al. 1987; Trojan and Linden 1992; Joschko et al. 1992; Shipitalo et al. 2000).

FIGURE 10.2 Example of a fiberglass replica of an L. terrestris burrow photographed against the backdropof a monolith of the soil from which it was obtained. Approximate length 1 m.

9

Because most of their activity is confined to surface soil horizons, however, endogeic earthwormsprobably do not directly influence water movement deep into the profile (Ela et al. 1992). The factthat portions of their burrows are often occluded with casts probably further limits their effectivenessin water transport.

Thus, most research has centered on the effects of anecic earthworm species on infiltration andon L. terrestris in particular. Burrows created by L. terrestris are normally single, nearly verticalchannels, up to 12 mm in diameter and 2.4 m deep (C.A. Edwards and Bohlen 1996). These burrowscan have several entrances directly underneath the midden, but these usually coalesce into a singlechannel within the upper few centimeters of soil. Nevertheless, Shipitalo and Butt (1999) andShipitalo and Gibbs (2000) found that about 5% of the L. terrestris burrows they investigated wereY shaped, with the two channels intersecting as deep as 69 cm below the soil surface.

One method that has been used to investigate water movement through natural L. terrestrisburrows in the field involves placing surface-vented collection bottles beneath individual burrows30 to 50 cm below the soil surface (W.M. Edwards et al. 1989; Shipitalo et al. 1994). Because theportions of the burrows above the samplers are not disturbed, this technique can be used toinvestigate infiltration into burrows with intact middens. Although middens would seem to inhibitentry of water, these studies indicated that L. terrestris burrows could transmit substantial amountsof water. In fact, Darwin (1881) did not consider middens to be a barrier to water movement. Thesestudies also indicated that the fraction of rainfall collected increased with rainfall intensity. Withan intense rainfall on a dry soil surface, W.M. Edwards et al. (1989) estimated that the monitoredburrows collected 10% of the rainfall and an average of 13 times more water than expected basedon the diameter of the burrows at the soil surface.

Problems with the bottle sample technique include concern that interception of flow with thesamplers may allow more water to move through the burrows than would naturally occur becauseinfiltration characteristics of the soil surrounding the lower reaches of the burrow might limitinfiltration (Lee and Foster 1991; Golabi et al. 1995). In addition, after initially high rates ofinfiltration, soil air pressure might restrict further water entry under field conditions (Linden andDixon 1976; Edwards et al. 1979; Baird 1997), a consequence precluded by the sampler design.These concerns appear to be unfounded in most soils under most conditions because proceduresin which infiltration has been measured by introducing water directly into the openings of individualL. terrestris burrows at the soil surface have demonstrated average infiltration rates in the range ofseveral hundred milliliters per minute, well in excess of the amounts measured using the bottlesampler technique, for soils in Germany (Ehlers 1975), the Netherlands (Bouma 1982), Wisconsin(Wang et al. 1994), the U.K., and Ohio (Shipitalo and Butt 1999). Moreover, the study by Shipitaloand Butt (1999) indicted that the presence of live L. terrestris in the burrows did not have detectableeffects on infiltration. This addressed the concern of Lee and Foster (1991) that anecic earthwormsmight tightly seal their burrows with their bodies and limit infiltration. In fact, Shipitalo and Butt(1999) speculated that occupied burrows might be more effective in transmitting water than aban-doned burrows because they are more likely to maintain near-surface continuity.

The effects of earthworms on infiltration have also been investigated in the laboratory usingintact or repacked soil columns with resident or inoculated earthworms. Although these studieshave provided insight into mechanisms affecting infiltration, one concern, particularly with repackedsoil columns inoculated with earthworms, is that the burrows formed are not representative of thoseconstructed under more natural conditions (Springett and Gray 1998). Similarly, studies in whichartificially constructed macropores are used to investigate water movement through earthwormburrows can have significant limitations and must be interpreted with caution (Joschko et al. 1989;Roth and Joschko 1991; Ela et al. 1992; Li and Ghodrati 1995). In this case, an additional limitationis that the artificial burrows lack the organic matter-rich lining or drilosphere, composed of earth-worm excrement, mucus secretions, and plant remains, that can affect water and chemical movement(Stehouwer et al. 1993, 1994).

10

Models have also been used to determine the impact of earthworm burrows and othermacropores on infiltration (Ehlers 1975; W.M. Edwards et al. 1979; Smettem and Collis-George1985; Smettem 1986; Wang et al. 1994, Li and Ghodrati 1995). Although this approach is usefulin investigating the factors affecting infiltration in earthworm burrows, collection of the burrowdata needed to obtain parameters (i.e., burrow depth, length, diameter, volume) for the models isdifficult. Moreover, although most of these models indicate that the aforementioned parametersshould affect infiltration capacity, Shipitalo and Butt (1999) were unable to detect any significantcorrelations between these geometrical properties and infiltration rates through L. terrestris burrows.In addition, not all earthworm burrows conduct water (Ela et al. 1992; Trojan and Linden 1992;Shipitalo et al. 2000). In fact, Bouma et al. (1982) stated that theoretical models are unlikely topredict infiltration in earthworm burrows successfully given the complexity and variability of themorphological factors affecting hydraulic performance.

EFFECTS OF EARTHWORM BURROWS ON WATER QUALITY

Increased infiltration attributable to earthworm activity in soils is generally regarded as beneficialbecause it can reduce surface runoff, thereby increasing plant-available water and reducing thepotential for overland transport of sediment, nutrients, and agrochemicals (Shipitalo et al. 2000).Earthworm burrows can also increase the efficiency of subsurface drainage systems (Urbánek andDoleñal 1992) and may help restore the infiltration capacity of clogged septic system leach beds(Jones et al. 1993). However, this increased infiltration can increase the quantity and rate of solutemovement through the soil profile. This is of particular concern with L. terrestris burrows becausethey are often deep enough to penetrate the entire soil profile (Figure 10.2). Thus, solutes transportedthrough these burrows can rapidly bypass the upper reaches of the profile, where uptake is mostlikely to occur and biological activity and the potential for degradation are greatest. In addition,because the velocity at which water moves through these macropores is much greater than whenthe entire soil matrix is involved in the flow process, the amount of soil a solute encounters andits contact time with the soil are reduced.

It is difficult, however, to quantify the effects of earthworm burrows on chemical transportbecause, as just discussed, it is difficult to measure their effects on infiltration. An additionalcomplication is that the burrow linings can serve as both a source and a sink for various solutes.For example, W.M. Edwards et al. (1992b) found that when nitrate-free water was poured into L.terrestris burrows and immediately collected 45 cm below the soil surface, it contained as muchas 40 mg of nitrate-nitrogen per liter. They speculated that the nitrate originated from the decom-position of the organic matter lining the burrows. This contention is supported by the work ofParkin and Berry (1999), in which higher microbial populations as well as higher nitrification anddenitrification rates were noted in L. terrestris burrow linings than in bulk soil. W.M. Edwards etal. (1992b) also noted a fivefold reduction in the concentration of alachlor and a ninefold reductionin the concentration of atrazine when solutions of these two herbicides were poured into burrowsand collected at the bottom. When these solutions were poured through man-made artificial burrows,the concentrations were only reduced by about half. In this instance, the decreased herbicideconcentrations were attributed to sorption of the herbicides by the organic matter-rich linings ofthe burrows, a contention supported by the work of Stehouwer et al. (1993, 1994). For this reason,chemical tracers are often used to investigate solute movement in earthworm burrows.

The results of a number of field and laboratory chemical transport and tracer studies suggestedthat earthworm burrows can increase overall water movement through the soil and contribute to aslight increase in the leaching of surface-applied agrochemicals, particularly when intense stormsoccur shortly after application on residue-covered no-till soils (Germann et al. 1984; Bicki andGuo 1991; W.M. Edwards et al. 1992a; Trojan and Linden 1992). The potential for this to occuris greatly reduced with time (W.M. Edwards et al. 1993, 1997; Logsdon 1995) and low intensityintervening rainfalls (Shipitalo et al. 1990, Propes et al. 1993; Golabi et al. 1995). Ingestion of

11

herbicide-coated residues by earthworms can also reduce leaching losses (Farenhorst et al.,2000a,b).

Other potential adverse effects of earthworm burrows on water quality and water utilizationinclude fostering nonuniform distribution of water during furrow irrigation and loss of water throughunlined irrigation ditches. Possible remedies for these concerns include compacting the ditches andremoving vegetation to reduce earthworm burrowing (Kemper et al. 1988) and adding ammonia atlow rates to the irrigation water to repel earthworms (Trout and Johnson 1989). Burrowing byearthworms can also contribute to leakage of earthen-lined manure storage lagoons by increasingthe hydraulic conductivity of the berms (McCurdy and McSweeney 1993). Presumably, the proce-dures used to reduce water movement through unlined irrigation ditches would help alleviate thisconcern.

Earthworm burrows can also affect the movement of the constituents in animal wastes appliedto soils. Joergensen et al. (1998) noted greater movement of fecal indicator organisms in cattleslurry applied to grassland than to plowed soil; they attributed this increased movement to greaternumbers of L. terrestris burrows in the grassland. Similarly, the results of a study by Shipitalo andGibbs (2000) suggested that L. terrestris burrows, in close proximity to subsurface drains, cancontribute to rapid movement of injected animal wastes off-site. In this instance, rapid movementof the tracer to the buried drains was limited to burrows 0.5 m to either side of the drain. Thissuggests that disrupting the burrows in this region prior to slurry application or avoiding applicationin this region might reduce this concern.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the large number of studies that have been conducted on the effects of earthworm activityon soil structure, a number of important gaps in knowledge remain. Factors contributing to thisproblem include a lack of appropriate techniques to assess aggregation and porosity and often-inappropriate extrapolation of laboratory findings to the field.

In general, earthworm activity improves soil aggregation, but their casting activity initiallydestabilizes the soil. Although laboratory studies can elucidate some of the factors affecting theimprovement of aggregation with time, only when the fate of earthworm casts is investigated inthe field or in microcosms that reflect the complexity of natural systems and managed agroecosytemswill a more complete understanding be obtained. One approach that shows promise is to manipulateearthworm populations in long-term field plots to assess the effects of different population levelson soil structural dynamics (Bohlen et al. 1995).

Similarly, quantification of earthworm burrow morphology and the effects of earthworm bur-rows on water movement and water quality are hampered by limitations in methodology. Earthwormburrows, particularly those formed by anecic species of earthworms, can function as preferentialflow pathways. Although enhanced infiltration is normally desirable, in rare instances it can resultin increased chemical movement through the soil or inappropriate distribution of irrigation waterand liquid animal wastes. Although there are some management options available to reduce thisconcern, the dynamics of water movement through earthworm burrows at the field scale are stillpoorly understood. Once problems with limited resolution are overcome, x-ray computed tomog-raphy holds considerable promise for increasing knowledge of the mechanisms affecting water andsolute transport in earthworm burrows.

REFERENCES

Alakukku, L., J. Ahokas, and A. Ristolainen. 2002. Response of clay soil macroporosity to stress caused bytracked tractors, in M. Pagliai and R. Jones, Eds., Sustainable Land Management — EnvironmentalProtection: A Soil Physical Approach, Advances in GeoEcology 35, pp. 319–330.

12

Altemüller, H.J. and M. Joschko. 1992. Fluorescent staining of earthworm casts for thin section microscopy,Soil Biol. Biochem., 24:1577–1582.

Baird, A.J. 1997. Field estimation of macropore functioning and surface hydraulic conductivity in a fen peat,Hydrol. Proc., 11:287–295.

Barley, K.P. 1959. The influence of earthworms on soil fertility. II. Consumption of soil and organic matterby the earthworm Allolobophora caliginosa (Savigny), Aust. J. Agric. Res., 10:179–185.

Barois, I. and P. Lavelle. 1986. Changes in respiration rate and some physico-chemical properties of a tropicalsoil during transit through Pontoscolex corethrurus (Oligochaeta) intestinal tract, Soil Biol. Biochem.,18:539–541.

Barois, I., G. Villemin, P. Lavelle, and F. Toutain. 1993. Transformation of the soil structure through Pon-toscolex corethrurus (Oligochaeta) intestinal tract, Geoderma, 56:57–66.

Beare, M.H., P.F. Hendrix, and D.C. Coleman. 1994. Water stable aggregates and organic matter fractions inconventional- and no-tillage soils, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 58:777–786.

Bicki, T.J., and L. Guo. 1991. Tillage and simulated rainfall intensity effect on bromide movement in anArgiudoll, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 55:794–799.

Binet, F. and R.C. Le Bayon. 1999. Space-time dynamics in situ of earthworm casts under temperate cultivatedsoils, Soil Biol. Biochem., 31:85–93.

Binet, F. and P. Tréhen. 1992. Experimental microcosm study on the role of Lumbricus terrestris (Oligochaeta:Lumbricidae) on nitrogen dynamics in cultivated soils, Soil Biol. Biochem., 24:1501–1506.

Blake, G.R. and R.D. Gilman. 1970. Thixotropic changes with ageing of synthetic soil aggregates, Soil Sci.Soc. Am. Proc., 34:561–564.

Blanchart, E., A. Albrecht, J. Alegre, A. Duboisset, C. Villenave, B. Pashanasi, P. Lavelle, and L. Brussaard.1999. Effects of earthworms on soil structure and physical properties, in P. Lavelle, L. Brussaard, andP.F. Hendrix, Eds., Earthworm Management in Tropical Agroecosystems, CAB International, Wall-ingford, U.K.

Blanchart E., A. Bruand, and P. Lavelle. 1993. The physical structure of casts of Millsonia anomala (Oli-gochaeta: Megascolecidae) in shrub savanna soil (Côte d'Ivoire), Geoderma, 56:119–132.

Blanchart, E., P. Lavelle, E. Bruadeau, Y. Le Bissonnais, and C. Valentin. 1997. Regulation of soil structureby geophagous earthworm activities in humid savannas of Côte d’Ivoire, Soil Biol. Biochem.,29:431–439.

Bohlen, P.J., R.W. Parmelee, J.M. Blair, C.A. Edwards, and B.R. Stinner. 1995. Efficacy of methods formanipulating earthworm populations in large-scale field experiments in agroecosystems, Soil Biol.Biochem., 27:993–999.

Bolton, P.J. and J. Phillipson. 1976. Burrowing, feeding, egestion, and energy budgets of Allolobophora rosea(Savigny) (Lumbricidae), Oecologia, 23:225–245.

Bouché, M.B. 1977. Stratégies lombriciennes, Biol. Bull. (Stockholm), 25:122–132.Bouché, M.B. and F. Al-Addan. 1997. Earthworms, water infiltration and soil stability: some new assessments,

Soil Biol. Biochem., 29:441–452.Bouma, J., C.F.M. Belmans, and L.W. Dekker. 1982. Water infiltration and redistribution in a silt loam soil

with vertical worm channels, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 46:917–921.Brown, G.G., I. Barois, and P. Lavelle. 2000. Regulation of soil organic matter dynamics and microbial activity

in the drilosphere and the role of interactions with other edaphic functional domains, Eur. J. Soil Biol.,36:177–198.

Buck, C., M. Langmaack, and S. Schrader. 1999. Nutrient content of earthworm casts influenced by differentmulch types, Eur. J. Soil Biol., 35:23–30.

Capowiez, Y., A. Pierret, O. Daniel, P. Monestiez, and A. Kretzschmar. 1998. 3D skeleton reconstructions ofnatural earthworm burrow systems using CAT scan images of soil cores, Biol. Fertil. Soils, 27:51–59.

Chapman, S.J. and J.M. Lynch. 1985. Polysaccharide synthesis by capsular micro-organisms in co-culturewith cellulolitic fungi on straw and stabilization of soil aggregates, Biol. Fertil. Soils, 1:161–166.

Chauvel, A., M. Grimaldi, E. Barros, E. Blanchart, T. Desjardins, M. Sarrazin, and P. Lavelle. 1999. Pasturedamage by an Amazonian earthworm, Nature, 398:32–33.

Daniel, O., A. Kretzschmar, Y. Capowiez, L. Kohli, and J. Zeyer. 1997. Computer-assisted tomography ofmacroporosity and its application to study the activity of the earthworm Aporrectodea nocturna, Eur.J. Soil Sci., 48:727–737.

13

Darwin, C.R. 1881. The Formation of Vegetable Mould Through the Action of Worms with Observations onTheir Habits, Murray, London.

Decaëns, T, 2000. Degradation dynamics of surface casts in grasslands of the eastern plains of Columbia,Biol. Fertil. Soils, 32:149–156.

Decaëns, T., J.H. Galvis, and E. Amézquita. 2001. Propriétés des structures produites par les ingénieursécologiaues à la surface du sol d’une savanne Colombienne, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris Life Sci.,324:465–478.

Dexter, A.R., R. Horn, and W.D. Kemper. 1988. Two mechanisms for age-hardening of soils, J. Soil Sci.,39:163–175.

Dexter, A.R., B. Kroesbergen, and H. Kuipers. 1984. Some mechanical properties of topsoils from theIjisselmeerpolders. I. Undisturbed soil aggregates, Neth. J. Agric. Sci., 32:205–214.

Dutt, A.K. 1948. Earthworms and soil aggregation, J. Am. Soc. Agron., 40:407–410.Edwards, C.A., and P.J. Bohlen. 1996. Biology and Ecology of Earthworms, Chapman and Hall, London.Edwards, W.M., L.D. Norton, and C.E. Redmond. 1988a. Characterizing macropores that affect infiltration

into non-tilled soil, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 52:483–487.Edwards, W.M., M.J. Shipitalo, W.A. Dick, and L.B. Owens. 1992a. Rainfall intensity affects transport of

water and chemicals through macropores in no-till soil, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 56:52–58.Edwards, W.M., M.J. Shipitalo, R. Lal, and L.B. Owens. 1997. Rapid changes in concentration of herbicides

in corn field surface depressions, J. Soil Water Conserv., 52:277–281.Edwards, W.M., M.J. Shipitalo, and L.D. Norton. 1988b. Contribution of macroporosity to infiltration into a

continuous corn no-tilled watershed: Implications for contaminant movement, J. Contamin. Hydrol.,3:193–205.

Edwards, W.M., M.J. Shipitalo, L.B. Owens, and W.A. Dick. 1993. Factors affecting preferential flow of waterand atrazine through earthworm burrows under continuous no-till corn, J. Environ. Qual., 22:453–457.

Edwards, W.M., M.J. Shipitalo, L.B. Owens, and L.D. Norton. 1989. Water and nitrate movement in earthwormburrows within long-term no-till cornfields, J. Soil Water Conserv., 44:240–243.

Edwards, W.M., M.J. Shipitalo, L.B. Owens, and L.D. Norton. 1990. Effect of Lumbricus terrestris L. burrowson hydrology of continuous no-till corn fields, Geoderma, 46:73–84.

Edwards, W.M., M.J. Shipitalo, S.J. Traina, C.A. Edwards, and L.B. Owens. 1992b. Role of Lumbricusterrestris (L.) burrows on quality of infiltrating water, Soil Biol. Biochem., 24:1555–1561.

Edwards, W.M., R.R. van der Ploeg, and W. Ehlers. 1979. A numerical study of the effects of noncapillary-sized pores upon infiltration, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 43:851–856.

Ehlers, W. 1975. Observation on earthworm channels and infiltration on tilled and untilled loess soil, Soil Sci.,119:242–249.

Ela, S.D., S.C. Gupta, and W.J. Rawls. 1992. Macropore and surface seal interactions affecting water infiltrationinto soil, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 56:714–721.

Emerson, W.W., R.C. Foster, and J.M. Oades. 1986. Organo-mineral complexes in relation to soil aggregationand soil structure, in P.M. Huang and M.J. Schnitzer, Eds., Interactions of Soil Minerals with NaturalOrganics and Microbes, Soil Sci. Soc. Am., Madison, Wisconsin.

Farenhorst, A., E. Topp, B.T. Bowman, and A.D. Tomlin. 2000a. Earthworm burrowing and feeding activityand the potential for atrazine transport by preferential flow, Soil Biol. Biochem., 32:479–488.

Farenhorst, A., E. Topp, B.T. Bowman, and A.D. Tomlin. 2000b. Earthworms and the dissipation and distri-bution of atrazine in the soil profile, Soil Biol. Biochem., 32:23–33.

Flegel, M., S. Schrader, and H.Q. Zhang. 1998. Influence of food quality on the physical and chemicalproperties of detritivorous earthworm casts, Appl. Soil Ecol., 9:263–269.

Friend, J.J. and K.Y. Chan. 1995. Influence of cropping on the population of a native earthworm and consequenteffects on hydraulic properties of vertisols, Aust. J. Soil Res., 33:995–1006.

Ganeshamurthy, A.N., K.M. Manjaiah, and A.S. Rao. 1998. Mobilization of nutrients in tropical soils throughworm casting: availability of macronutrients, Soil Biol. Biochem., 30:1671–1676.

Garvin, M.H., F. Martinez, J.B. Jesus, M. Gutierrez, P. Ruiz, and D.J.D. Cosin. 2001. Effect of Hormogasterelisae (Oligochaeta; Hormogastridae) on the stability of soil aggregates, Eur. J. Soil Biol., 37:273–276.

Ge, F., W.D. Shuster, C.A. Edwards, R.W. Parmelee, and S. Subler. 2001. Water stability of earthworm castsin manure- and inorganic-fertilizer amended agroecosystems influenced by age and depth, Pedobio-logia, 45:12–26.

14

Germann, P.F., W.M. Edwards, and L.B. Owens. 1984. Profiles of bromide and increased soil moisture afterinfiltration into soils with macropores, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 48:237–244.

Gill, W.R. 1959. The effects of drying on the mechanical strength of Lloyd clay, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc.,23:255–257.

Golabi, M.H., D.E. Radcliffe, W.L. Hargrove, and E.W. Tollner. 1995. Macropore effects in conventional andno-tillage soils, J. Soil Water Conserv., 50:205–210.

Görres, J.H., M.C. Savin, and J.A. Amador. 2001. Soil micropore structure and carbon mineralization inburrows and casts of an anecic earthworm (Lumbricus terrestris), Soil Biol. Biochem., 33:1881–1887.

Graff, O. 1970. Phosphorus content of earthworm casts, LandbForsch-Völkenrode, 20:33–36.Guggenberger, G., R.J. Thomas, and W. Zech. 1996. Soil organic matter within earthworm casts of an anecic-

endogeic tropical pasture community, Columbia, Appl. Soil Ecol., 3:263–274.Hamilton, W.E. and D.L. Dindal. 1989. Impact of landspread sewage sludge and earthworm introduction on

established earthworms and soil structure, Biol. Fertil. Soils, 8:160–165.Haynes, R.J. and P.M. Fraser. 1998. A comparison between aggregate stability and biological activity in

earthworm casts and uningested soil as affected by amendment with wheat or lucerne straw, Eur. J.Soil Sci., 49:629–636.

Hindell, R.P., B.M. McKenzie, and J.M. Tisdall. 1994. Destabilization of soil aggregates by geophageousearthworms — a comparison between earthworm and artificial casts, in C.E. Pankhurst, Ed., SoilBiota, Management and Sustainable Farming, CSIRO, Melbourne.

Hindell, R.P., B.M. McKenzie, and J.M. Tisdall. 1997a. Destabilization of soil during the production ofearthworm (Lumbricidae) and artificial casts, Biol. Fertil. Soils, 24:153–163.

Hindell, R.P., B.M. McKenzie, and J.M. Tisdall. 1997b. Influence of drying and ageing on the stabilizationof earthworm (Lumbricidae) casts, Biol. Fertil. Soils, 25:27–35.

Hirth, J.R., B.M. McKenzie, and J.M. Tisdall. 1996. Volume density of earthworm burrows in compactedcores of soil as estimated by direct and indirect methods, Biol. Fertil. Soils, 21:171–176.

Hopp, H. and H.T. Hopkins. 1946. Earthworms as a factor in the formation of water-stable aggregates, J. SoilWater Conserv., 1:11–13.

Jegou, D., D. Cluzeau, H.J. Wolf, Y. Gandon, and P. Tréhen. 1998. Assessment of the burrow system ofLumbricus terrestris, Aporrectodea giardi, and Aporrectodea caliginosa using x-ray computed tomog-raphy, Biol. Fertil. Soils, 26:116–121.

Joergensen, R.G., H. Küntzel, S. Scheu, and D. Seitz. 1998. Movement of faecal indicator organisms inearthworm channels under a loamy arable and grassland soil, Appl. Soil Ecol., 8:1–10.

Jones, L.A., E.M. Rutledge, H.D. Scott, D.C. Wolf, and B.J. Teppen. 1993. Effects of two earthworm specieson movement of septic tank effluent through soil columns, J. Environ. Qual., 22:52–57.

Joschko, M., H. Diestel, and O. Larink. 1989. Assessment of earthworm burrowing efficiency in compactedsoil with a combination of morphological and soil physical measurements, Biol. Fertil. Soils,8:191–196.

Joschko, M., W. Söchtig, and O. Larink. 1992. Functional relationship between earthworm burrows and soilwater movement in column experiments, Soil Biol. Biochem., 24:1545–1547.

Kabir, Z. and R.T. Koide. 2002. Effect of autumn and winter mycorrhizal cover crops on soil properties,nutrient uptake and yield of sweet corn in Pennsylvania, USA, Plant Soil, 238:205–215.

Kemper, W.D., P. Jolley, and R.C. Rosenau. 1988. Soil management to prevent earthworms from riddlingirrigation ditch banks, Irrig. Sci., 9:79–87.

Kladivko, E.J., A.D. MacKay, and J.M. Bradford. 1986. Earthworms as a factor in the reduction of soil crusting,Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 50:191–196.

Kladivko, E.J. and H.J. Timmenga. 1990. Earthworms and agricultural management, in J.E.Box and L.C.Hammond, Eds., Rhizosphere Dynamics, AAAS Selected Symposium, pp. 192–216.

Kristufek, V., K. Ravasz, and V. Pizl. 1992. Changes in densities of bacteria and microfungi during gut transientin Lumbricus rubellus and Aporrectodea caliginosa (Oligochaeta: Lumbricidae), Soil Biol. Biochem.,24:1499–1500.

Lal, R. and O.O. Akinremi. 1983. Physical properties of earthworm casts and surface soil as influenced bymanagement, Soil Sci., 135:114–122.

Lal, R. and D. DeVleeschauwer. 1982. Influence of tillage methods and fertilizer application on chemicalproperties of worm castings in a tropical soil, Soil Tillage Res., 2:37–52.

15

Langmaack, M., S. Schrader, U. Rapp-Bernhardt, and K. Kotzke. 1999.Quantitative analysis of earthwormburrow systems with respect to biological soil-structure regeneration after soil compaction, Biol. Fertil.Soils, 28:219–229.

Lavelle, P. 1988. Earthworm activities and the soil system, Biol. Fertil. Soils, 6:237–251.Lavelle, P., R. Schaefer, and Z. Zaidi. 1989. Soil ingestion and growth in Millsonia anomala, a tropical

earthworm, as influenced by the quality of the organic matter ingested, Pedobiologia, 33:379–388.Le Bayon, R.C. and F. Binet. 1999. Rainfall effects on erosion of earthworm casts and phosphorus transfers

by water runoff, Biol. Fertil. Soils, 30:7–13.Le Bayon, R.C. and F. Binet. 2001. Earthworm surface casts affect soil erosion by runoff water and phosphorus

transfer in a temperate maize crop, Pedobiologia, 45:430–442.Lee, K.E. 1985. Earthworms — Their Ecology and Relationships with Soils and Land Use, Academic Press,

New York.Lee, K.E. and R.C. Foster. 1991. Soil fauna and soil structure, Aust. J. Soil Res., 29:745–775.Li, Y. and M. Ghodrati. 1995. Transport of nitrate in soils as affected by earthworm activities, J. Environ.

Qual., 24:432–438.Ligthart, T.N. 1997. Thin section analysis of earthworm burrow disintegration in a permanent pasture, Geo-

derma, 75:135–148.Ligthart, T.N., G.J.W.C. Peek, and E.J. Taber. 1993. A method for the three-dimensional mapping of earthworm

burrow systems, Geoderma, 57:129–141.Linden, D.R. and R.M. Dixon. 1976. Soil air pressure effects on route and rate of infiltration, Soil Sci. Soc.

Am. J., 40:963–965.Logsdon, S.D. 1995. Flow mechanisms through continuous and buried macropores, Soil Sci., 160:237–242.Marinissen, J.C.Y. and A.R. Dexter. 1990. Mechanisms of stabilization of earthworm casts and artificial casts,

Biol. Fertil. Soils, 9:163–167.Marinissen, J.C.Y., E. Nijhuis, and N. van Breemen. 1996. Clay dispersibility in moist casts of different soils,

Appl. Soil Ecol., 4:83–92.McCurdy, M. and K. McSweeney. 1993. The origin and identification of macropores in an earthen-lined dairy

manure storage basin, J. Environ. Qual., 22:148–154.McInerney, M. and T. Bolger. 2000. Temperature, wetting cycles and soil texture effects on carbon and nitrogen

dynamics in stabilized earthworm casts, Soil Biol. Biochem., 32:335–349.McInerney, M., D.J. Little, and T. Bolger. 2001. Effect of earthworm cast formation on the stabilization of

organic matter in fine soil fractions, Eur. J. Soil Biol., 37:251–254.McKenzie, B.M., and A.R. Dexter. 1987. Physical properties of casts of the earthworm Aporrectodea rosea,

Biol. Fertil. Soils, 5:152–157.McKenzie, B.M. and A.R. Dexter. 1993. Size and orientation of burrows made by the earthworms Aporrectodea

rosea and A. caliginosa, Geoderma, 56:233–241.Molope, M.B., I.C. Grieve, and E.R. Page. 1985. Thixotropic changes in the stability of molded soil aggregates,

Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 49:979–983.Molope, M.B., I.C. Grieve, and E.R. Page. 1987. Contributions by fungi and bacteria to aggregate stability

of cultivated soils, J. Soil Sci., 38:71–77.Mora, P., C. Seugé, J.L. Chotte, and C. Rouland. 2003. Physico-chemical typology of the biogenic structures

of termites and earthworms: a comparative analysis, Biol. Fertil. Soils, 37:245–249.Newell, G.E. 1950. The role of coelomic fluid in the movements of earthworms, J. Exp. Biol., 27:110–121.Nooren, C.A.M., N. Van Breemen, J.J. Stoorvogel, and A.G. Jongmans. 1995. The role of earthworms in the

formation of sandy surface soils in a tropical forest in Ivory Coast, Geoderma, 65:135–148.Parle, J.N. 1963. A microbiological study of earthworm casts, J. Gen. Microbiol., 31:13–22.Parkin, T.B. and E.C. Berry. 1999. Microbial nitrogen transformations in earthworm burrows, Soil Biol.

Biochem., 31:1765–1771.Perret, J., S.O. Prasher, A. Kantzas, and C. Langford. 1997. 3-D visualization of soil macroporosity using x-

ray CAT scanning, Can. Agric. Eng., 39:249–261.Piearce, T.G. 1972. The calcium relations of selected Lumbricidae, J. Animal Ecol., 41:167–187.Pitkänen, J. and V. Nuutinen. 1997. Distribution and abundance of burrows formed by Lumbricus terrestris

L. and Aporrectodea caliginosa Sav. in the soil profile, Soil Biol. Biochem., 29:463–467.Propes, K.L., F.W. Simmons, G.K. Sims, and C.W. Boast. 1993. Herbicide movement into and through

earthworm induced soil macropores, North Central Weed Sci. Soc. Proc., 48:49–50.

16

Robertson, E.B., S. Sarig, and M.K. Firestone. 1991. Cover-crop management of polysaccharide-mediatedaggregation in an orchard soil, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 55:734–739.

Roth, C.H. and M. Joschko. 1991. A note on the reduction of runoff from crusted soils by earthworm burrowsand artificial channels, Z. Pflanzenernahr. Bodenk., 154:101–105.

Schrader, S. 1993. Semi-automatic image analysis of earthworm activity in 2D soil sections, Geoderma,56:257–264.

Schrader, S. and H. Zhang. 1997. Earthworm casting: stabilization or destabilization of soil structure? SoilBiol. Biochem., 29:469–475.

Scullion, J. and A. Malik. 2000. Earthworm activity affecting organic matter, aggregation and microbial activityin soils restored after opencast mining for coal, Soil Biol. Biochem., 32:119–126.

Sharpley, A.N. and J.K. Syers. 1976. Potential role of earthworm casts for the phosphorus enrichment of run-off waters, Soil Biol. Biochem., 8:341–346.

Sharpley, A.N., J.K. Syers, and J.A. Springett. 1979. Effect of surface-casting earthworms on the transport ofphosphorus and nitrogen in surface runoff from pasture, Soil Biol. Biochem., 11:459–462.

Shaw, C. and S. Pawluk. 1986. The development of soil structure by Octolasion tyrtaeum, Aporrectodeaturgida and Lumbricus terrestris in parent materials belonging to different textural classes, Pedobio-logia, 29:327–339.

Shipitalo, M.J. and K.R. Butt. 1999. Occupancy and geometrical properties of Lumbricus terrestris L. burrowsaffecting infiltration, Pedobiologia, 43:782–794.

Shipitalo, M.J., W.A. Dick, and W.M. Edwards. 2000. Conservation tillage and macropore factors that affectwater movement and the fate of chemicals, Soil Tillage Res., 53:167–183.

Shipitalo, M.J., W.M. Edwards, W.A. Dick, and L.B. Owens. 1990. Initial storm effects on macropore transportof surface-applied chemicals in no-till soil, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 54:1530–1536.

Shipitalo, M.J., W.M. Edwards, and C.E. Redmond. 1994. Comparison of water movement and quality inearthworm burrows and pan lysimeters, J. Environ. Qual., 23:1345–1351.

Shipitalo, M.J. and Gibbs. 2000. Potential of earthworm burrows to transmit injected animal wastes to tiledrains, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 64:2103–2109.

Shipitalo, M.J. and R. Protz. 1987. Comparison of morphology and porosity of a soil under conventional andzero tillage, Can. J. Soil Sci., 67:445–456.

Shipitalo, M.J. and R. Protz. 1988. Factors influencing the dispersibility of clay in worm casts, Soil Sci. Soc.Am. J., 52:764–769.

Shipitalo, M.J. and R. Protz. 1989. Chemistry and micromorphology of aggregation in earthworm casts,Geoderma, 45:357–374.

Shipitalo, M.J., R. Protz, and A.D. Tomlin. 1988. Effect of diet on the feeding and casting activity of Lumbricusterrestris and L. rubellus in laboratory culture, Soil Biol. Biochem., 20:233–237.

Shuster, W.D., S. Subler, and E.L. McCoy. 2000. Foraging by deep-burrow earthworms degrades surface soilstructure of a fluventic Hapludoll in Ohio, Soil Tillage Res., 54:179–189.

Smettem, K.R.J. 1986. Analysis of water flow from cylindrical macropores, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 1139–1142.Smettem, K.R.J. and N. Collis-George. 1985. The influence of cylindrical macropores on steady-state infil-

tration in a soil under pasture, J. Hydrol., 52:107–114.Springett, J.A. and R.A.J. Gray. 1998. Burrowing behaviour of the New Zealand indigenous earthworm

Octochaetus multiporus (Megascolecidae: Oligochaeta), N.Z. J. Ecol., 22:95–97.Stehouwer, R.C., W.A. Dick, and S.J. Traina. 1993. Characteristics of earthworm burrow lining affecting

atrazine sorption, J. Environ. Qual., 22:181–185.Stehouwer, R.C., W.A. Dick, and S.J. Traina. 1994. Sorption and retention of herbicides in vertically oriented

earthworm and artificial burrows, J. Environ. Qual., 23:286–292.Sveistrup, T.E., T.K. Haraldsen, and F. Engelstad. 1997. Earthworm channels in cultivated clayey and loamy

Norwegian soils, Soil Tillage Res., 43:251–262.Swaby, R.J. 1950. The influence of earthworms on soil aggregation, J. Soil Sci., 1:195–197.Teotia, S.P., F.L. Duley, and T.M. McCalla. 1950. Effect of Stubble Mulching on Number and Activity of

Earthworms, Nebraska Agric. Exp. Station Bull. No. 165. Tisdall, J.M. 1991. Fungal hyphae and structural stability of soil, Aust. J. Soil Res., 29:729–743.Tisdall, J.M. and J.M. Oades. 1982. Organic matter and water stable aggregates in soils, J. Soil Sci.,

33:141–163.

17

Tisdall, J.M., S.E. Smith, and P. Rengasamy. 1997. Aggregation of soil by fungal hyphae, Aust. J. Soil Res.,35:55–60.

Tiunov, A.V. and S. Scheu. 2000. Microfungal communities in soil, litter and casts of Lumbricus terrestris L.(Lumbricidae): a laboratory experiment, Appl. Soil Ecol., 14:17–26.

Tiwari, S.C., B.K. Tiwari, and R.R. Mishra. 1989. Microbial populations, enzyme activities and nitrogen-phosphorus-potassium enrichment in earthworm casts and in the surrounding soil of a pineappleplantation, Biol. Fertil. Soils, 8:178–182.

Tomlin, A.D., M.J. Shipitalo, W.M. Edwards, and R. Protz. 1995. Earthworms and their influence on soilstructure and infiltration, in P.F. Hendrix, Ed., Earthworm Ecology and Biogeography in NorthAmerica, Lewis Publishing, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 159–183.

Trojan, M.D. and D.R. Linden. 1992. Microrelief and rainfall effects on water and solute movement inearthworm burrows, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 56:727–733.

Trout, T.J. and G.S. Johnson. 1989. Earthworms and furrow irrigation, Trans. ASAE, 32:1594–1598.Urbánek, J. and F. Doleñal. 1992. Review of some case studies on the abundance and on the hydraulic efficiency

of earthworm channels in Czechoslovak soils, with reference to the subsurface pipe drainage, SoilBiol. Biochem., 24:1563–1571.

Utomo, W.H. and A.R. Dexter. 1981. Age hardening of agricultural top soils, J. Soil Sci., 32:335–350.Utomo, W.H. and A.R. Dexter. 1982 Changes in soil aggregate water stability induced by wetting drying

cycles in non-saturated soil, J. Soil Sci., 33:623–637.Van Hoof, P. 1983. Earthworm activity as a cause of splash erosion in a Luxembourg forest, Geoderma,

31:195–204.Wang, D., J.M. Norman, B. Lowery, and K. McSweeney. 1994. Nondestructive determination of hydrogeo-

metrical characteristics of soil macropores, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 58:294–303.White, G. 1789. The Natural History of Selborne, Benjamin White, London.Willoughby, G.L., E.J. Kladivko, and M.R. Savabi. 1997. Seasonal variations in infiltration rate under no-till

and conventional (disk) tillage systems as affected by Lumbricus terrestris activity, Soil Biol. Biochem.,29:481–484.

Zachmann, J.E., D.R. Linden, and C.E. Clapp. 1987. Macroporous infiltration and redistribution as affectedby earthworms, tillage and residue, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 51:1580–1586.

Zhang, H. and S. Schrader. 1993. Earthworm effects on selected physical and chemical properties of soilaggregates, Biol. Fertil. Soils, 15:229–234.

Ziegler, F. and W. Zech. 1992. Formation of water-stable aggregates through the action of earthworms.Implications from laboratory experiments, Pedobiologia, 36:91–96.

18